PhilippaB witters on

Monday, March 1, 2010

There's No Team in I

Recently, I have been so moved as to post some opinions on football. This has involved not only seeking to educate my fellow CIFfers on some of the important tax-related issues facing the club system, but also, shockingly, opining on actual games, focussing on Manchester City FC. One result of this is that I have discovered that AllyF and PeterJackson are City fans, which is nice, but there is also a slight feeling of uncertainty, even shame, because...

I have no team.

Buy this argument. Other arguments are available.

Advertising is immoral.

It felt good to type that.

The US Supreme Court may have ruled on several occasions* that advertising is protected by the First Amendment right to ‘freedom of speech’ , but that isn’t completely correct – advertising is the freedom to buy the opportunity to express speech. As individuals, we have freedom of speech – but those people we hear from most are those with some status, whether this results from their position or their popularity, both of which imply that the right not just to speak, but to be heard, is somehow ‘earned’. Advertising, on the other hand, is simply paid for.

Religion: the new Homeopathy?

In relation to the recent homeopathy thread[1], a parallel was drawn between supporting homeopathy and following religion. This seemingly appropriate parallel was employed by several ‘allopaths’ to demonstrate that people will indeed believe any old crap, without rhyme or reason. It was also employed, off-thread, to call for a less combative approach towards the ‘homeopaths’ (both groups named purely for convenience).

I do not believe that the parallel is accurate. Those who have noticed that my woolly-minded Methodism combines with an antipathy towards homeopathy will no doubt be thinking “well, she would say that, wouldn’t she?”, but bear with me.

It is probably more accurate to say that the parallel is not wholly accurate, but there may be some mutually applicable principles.

Resolutely not joining in

The lovely thing about liberalism is that it permits rather than proscribes - better to allow gay marriage / abortion /what-have-you and let those that don't want one opt out, than set strict social norms and ban everything in sight. In utility terms, it just makes more sense. But a weird transformation has taken place such that this free-an'-easy approach, while valuable in relation to important issues, has become almost prescriptive.